## Facts

- John Edward Johnson, Jr. robbed two men at gunpoint, taking cash and a ring, and fled in a car.
- The robberies were promptly reported, and police began searching for the robber and set up efforts to stop the vehicle.
- Less than 30 minutes later, while attempting to avoid police contact, Johnson drove at high speed, lost control, and crashed into another car.
- The driver of the other car, Elaine Williams, was killed as a result of the collision.
- Johnson left the crashed car and ran into a nearby marsh/swamp area to escape on foot.
- Police later recovered the gun and stolen property from the marsh and Johnson’s car.
- Johnson pleaded guilty to several offenses connected to the robberies and related conduct, and he was tried for murder.
- A jury convicted Johnson of first-degree felony murder and found robbery-murder special circumstances true, based on the theory that Williams’s death occurred during the commission of the robberies.
- At trial and on appeal, Johnson argued that the robberies had ended before the collision because he had, at times, believed he had gotten away and reached a place of temporary safety.
- The trial court imposed a life-without-parole sentence for the special-circumstance murder, consecutive to a determinate term for the other offenses.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported first-degree felony murder and the robbery-murder special circumstances where the killing occurred during Johnson’s flight from the robberies and he argued he had reached a place of temporary safety.
2. Whether the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges violated *People v. Wheeler* (group-bias jury selection).
3. Whether Johnson’s extrajudicial statement was admitted in violation of *Miranda*.
4. Whether admitting photographs of the victim and limited testimony about the victim’s life was unduly prejudicial at the guilt phase.
5. Whether claimed instructional or charging errors required reversal.
6. Whether the trial court violated Johnson’s right to appointed counsel in handling representation-related requests.
7. Whether life without the possibility of parole for special-circumstance felony murder constituted cruel or unusual punishment.
8. Whether sentencing error required remand for a new sentencing hearing.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held there was substantial evidence that the robberies were still in progress when Williams was killed, because a robbery continues during escape until the robber reaches a place of temporary safety; the felony-murder conviction and special-circumstance findings were affirmed.
- The court rejected Johnson’s *Wheeler* claim and found no reversible jury-selection error.
- The court rejected Johnson’s *Miranda* challenge to the admission of his statement (and found no prejudice warranting reversal).
- The court held the victim photographs and limited background testimony were not so inflammatory or prejudicial as to require exclusion, and any error did not warrant reversal.
- The court rejected the asserted instructional and charging claims as not showing reversible error when the record and instructions were considered as a whole.
- The court found no violation of the right to appointed counsel based on the trial court’s handling of representation matters.
- The court rejected the claim that the life-without-parole sentence was cruel or unusual punishment for first-degree murder with robbery special circumstances.
- The court concluded Johnson was entitled to a new sentencing hearing and therefore remanded for resentencing, while otherwise affirming the judgment.

## Legal Principles

- For felony murder and robbery-murder special circumstances, a robbery is treated as continuing through the perpetrator’s escape until the robber reaches a place of temporary safety; active flight and immediate efforts to avoid capture can support a finding that the felony is ongoing.
- On a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, the reviewing court considers the record in the light most favorable to the judgment and asks whether a rational jury could find the elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A *Wheeler* claim is evaluated under a multi-step inquiry; the trial court’s determinations about discrimination and credibility are given substantial deference on appeal.
- Statements obtained during custodial interrogation require *Miranda* warnings; admission of statements is reviewed for legal error and, if error occurred, for prejudice under the applicable harmless-error standard.
- Under Evidence Code section 352, relevant photographs and testimony may be excluded only if the danger of undue prejudice substantially outweighs probative value; the trial court has broad discretion.
- Jury instructions are reviewed in their full context; error warrants reversal only if it is reasonably probable the defendant would have obtained a more favorable result (or, for federal constitutional error, under the stricter harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt test).
- Claims involving substitution or appointment of counsel are reviewed for abuse of discretion and require a showing that the trial court’s ruling impaired the right to effective representation.
- Sentencing errors that affect the sentencing choices or structure may require a remand for a new sentencing hearing even when the convictions are affirmed.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal affirmed Johnson’s first-degree felony-murder conviction and robbery-murder special-circumstance findings because substantial evidence showed he was still fleeing and had not reached a place of temporary safety when the fatal collision occurred, rejected his remaining guilt-phase challenges, and remanded only for a new sentencing hearing.


People v. Johnson, 5 Cal. App. 4th 552 (1992)